The change from sometime
to sometimes is, from a typographical standpoint, a minor matter, but
the meaning of the sentence is dramatically transformed from a confident prediction
about the evolution of the ideal state in the original text to the mere acknowledgment
of a possible development in all later editions.

To paraphrase the original:

...philosophy eventually becomes
the chief pursuit of the citizens of the ideal state.

By contrast, all later editions
convey the impression that:

...philosophy occasionally
becomes the chief pursuit of the citizens of the ideal state.

Given the immediate context
in which this statement occurs and the revelators’ broader narrative of the
evolution of inhabited worlds toward light and life, and in the absence of
compelling evidence that the 1955 text was in error, this editor’s assumption
is that the original wording was the author’s choice.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 73:7.4; p.827 ¶3
Change type: M1

1st:
...he and Eve were to divide their time between these...capitals...

2nd - 15th,
CD: ...he and Eve were to divide their time among these...capitals...

Discussion:

The original construction
is correct because between can appropriately be used when more than
two objects are related, especially if the relationship is to each object
individually rather than in an indeterminate way to the group. Here, the
relationship is the division of Adam and Eve’s time between world capitals;
it is immaterial that there are more than two capitals involved. The following
paraphrase based on the passage may help to distinguish the usages:

The Adamic children were to live
among the evolutionary peoples, administering the affairs of the planetary
government from the various world capitals, while Adam and Eve would divide
their time between the capitals as advisors and coordinators.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 76:5.3; p.852 ¶2
Change type: D1

1st, 2nd,
12th -15th: ...the sovereign of this universe,
was so soon to appear...

3rd - 11th,
CD: ...the sovereign of this universe was so soon to
appear...

Discussion:

The location of this comma,
at the end of a line in the original format, makes it likely that the change
was an accidental database corruption coincident with the use of the new printing
plates in 1971. (Unfortunately, the electronic text has not been restored
to the original.)

Same as note for 76:5.3 (except
that electronic text has been restored).

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 78:2.3; p.870 ¶1
Change type: S5

1st:
...was there a civilization in anyway comparable.

2nd - 15th,
CD: ...was there a civilization in any way comparable.

Discussion:

The two-word form is the
appropriate choice when serving as an adverb only, rather than as an adverbial
conjunction, in which case the compound anyway is more common. This
latter use, roughly synonymous with at any rate or in any case,
is well illustrated by its only occurrence in the papers (at 148:6.4) when
Job’s friend, Eliphaz, is quoted as saying:

“Anyway, man seems predestined to
trouble, and perhaps the Lord is only chastising you for your own good.”

This is one of only four
instances in the 1955 text (the others being hestitate at 121:7.3,
anniversay at 123:2.3, and peformance at 126:1.5) in which common
English words have been typeset incorrectly where there is no possible basis
for morphological confusion (e.g. anyway/any way, sometime/some
time). The ease with which such typing mistakes are made, combined with
the difficulty of their detection in proofing (because of the mind’s tendency
to see the correct word even when an error is present), made this a very common
form of error in the days prior to spell-checking programs in even the most
rigorously proofed book. That there are only four such errors in the first
edition is the strongest evidence for the care with which that printing was
prepared, and a potent rebuttal for the many “corrections” put forth over
the years which presuppose careless preparation of the original text.

Conclusion:

Two keystrokes were transposed
in the first edition—a T4 error.

) 79:5.6; p.883 ¶7
Change type: M3

1st, 2nd:
and when the land passage to the west, over the Bering isthmus...

3rd - 15th,
CD: and when the land passage to the east, over the Bering
isthmus...

Discussion:

There is no question that
North America is east of Siberia—that fact being the basis for the 1967 change.
It is difficult to account for the appearance of west in the first
printing if east was in the original manuscript, but if the original
was West, referring to the Western Hemisphere, the only explanation
required is a mistakenly un-shifted keystroke—a simple T3 error.

In the Urantia Papers, West
and East are frequently utilized to designate a generalized geographical
location rather than direction, but in all other cases they refer to the western
and eastern reaches of Eurasia. Because there is no other instance of West
referring to the Western Hemisphere, we cannot be certain that this was the
original wording, but it is certain that if West had been printed here
in the first edition, the meaning would have been obvious, the passage would
never have been revised, and the question of this unique usage of West
would never have come up.

[A more complex explanation
involving an E1 error (a mistaken pre-publication “correction”) is the only
mechanism available for the transformation of east in the manuscript
to west in the 1955 text, but in view of the simplicity of the West/west
solution, it would seem to be unnecessary to resort to the E1 explanation
in this case.]

Conclusion:

There was a T3 error in the
1955 text: the W in West was mistakenly keyed without being
shifted into its capitalized form.

A change for the purpose
of database standardization is reasonable, as the original text contained
both forms at different locations, but the subsequent reversion of the printed
text, and the variant electronic text are problematic and quite incomprehensible
to this editor.

The origin of the variants
in the text may be related to a change in recommended spellings between the
1927 and 1937 editions of the Chicago Manual. (The former specifying
Graeco-, the latter, Greco-.) The OED and Webster’s
include both forms, but their preferences are split—along lines the reader
can, no doubt, predict. (See also note for 98:4.1)

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling is an acceptable
variant. However, database standardization (if consistently applied), could
be a reasonable justification for adopting the more modern form.

) 80:2.4; p.890 ¶8
Change type: P1

1st:
...to the level of the Atlantic Ocean [missing period]

2nd - 15th,
CD: ...to the level of the Atlantic Ocean.

Discussion:

This period, at the end of
the last line on the page in the original format, was missing in the first
printing. There were only two missing periods in the first edition. (See
117:7.4)

Conclusion:

The was a T1 (dropped keystroke)
error in the 1955 text.

) 80:5.8; p.894 ¶1
Change type: S5

1st:
Central Europe was for sometime controlled by the blue man...

2nd - 15th,
CD: Central Europe was for some time controlled by the blue
man...

Discussion:

The two-word form is correct
as the reference is to an indefinite period of time rather than to an indefinite
point in time. (See Webster’s)

Conclusion:

There was a T1 (dropped keystroke)
error in the first edition.

) 80:7.1; p.895 ¶1
Change type: S5

1st:
...there persisted for sometime a superior civilization...

2nd - 15th,
CD: ...there persisted for some time a superior civilization...

Discussion:

As in the previous case (80:5.8),
the two-word form is correct because the reference is to an indefinite period
of time; not an indefinite point in time.

Database standardization
is a good justification for the change here and at (89:8.1) below, as out
of the ten occurrences of lifelong or life-long in the text,
only these two were hyphenated. However, the later changes and current discrepancies
between editions are at odds with the presumed goal.

Although Webster’s
lists the compound word, differences between Chicago Manual editions
may have given rise to the varied spellings. The 1927 and 1937 editions contain
the general rule (as §251 or §213):

“Compounds of ‘life’ and ‘world’
require a hyphen:

life-history, life-principle (but:
lifetime)...”

But the 1949 Chicago Manual
modifies the rule slightly and lists lifelong as a specific example:

“§214. Compounds with ‘god’ and some
compounds of ‘life’ require a hyphen:

Tenskwatawa is the
standard transliteration for the Shawnee prophet’s name; the spelling in the
first edition may have been caused by a mistaken keystroke or may have been
the result of an error in reading the original manuscript. (Regarding the
latter possibility, see the note for 195:3.1.)

Conclusion:

An incorrect letter was present
in the 1955 text. It is not possible to determine whether it was a T3 (incorrect
keystroke) or T7 (mistaken reading of the manuscript) error.

10th, 11th,
15th: ...more particularly did each of
the twoscore separate tribes...

Discussion:

The replacement of the original
two-score with the compound twoscore is without support in Webster’s,
the OED, or the Chicago Manual.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 96:3.1; p.1055 ¶4
Change type: C1/C2

1st:
...from Egypt to the Arabian desert under his leadership.

2nd - 15th,
CD: ...from Egypt to the Arabian Desert under his leadership.

Discussion:

Desert was not capitalized
in the 1955 edition, but in all subsequent Urantia Foundation printings it
was changed to the capitalized form. The original is appropriate if desert
is a geographic description rather than part of a name. (See, for example,
Mediterranean coast (96:2.1), Nile valley (96:2.2).)

The Uversa Press edition
reflects the correct analysis by restoring this occurrence to its original
form and by lowercasing the instance found three paragraphs later so that
both of these are consistent with the other examples of this phrase found
elsewhere in the text (95:7.1; 187:5.1).

The capitalized form is the
standard approved by the Chicago Manual, however, of the six occurrences
of this designation in the text, only one was capitalized in the first edition.
Because it is statistically unlikely that five of six would be random errors,
a more reasonable explanation is required. In this editor’s opinion, the
lowercased version was the choice of the several authors because it reflected
the evolutionary relationship of Moses’ ten commandments to the earlier
seven commandments of Melchizedek (93:4.6-13), the seven commands
of Eden (74:7.5-6), and the seven commands of Dalamatia (66:7.8-15)
[which are referenced as the seven commandments of Dalamatia at 74:7.6].
The single capitalized instance in the 1955 text is probably the result of
a stylistic edit to conform with the usage prescribed by the Chicago Manual.
(See also note at 137:2.9)

Conclusion:

The 1955 text probably reflects
the original manuscript.

) 98:4.1; p1081 ¶4
Change type: S4

1st:
The majority of people in the Graeco‑Roman world...

2nd - 15th,
CD: The majority of people in the Greco‑Roman world...

Discussion:

See note for 79:8.3 for a
detailed analysis. It is interesting to note that these two occurrences are
now found in two different forms in the electronic editions.

Conclusion:

The 1955 spelling, although
slightly archaic, is correct. Neither “modernization” nor “standardization”
has been achieved by the vagaries of later editing.

The original punctuation
was correct, as the use of a semi-colon is required to join two independent
clauses.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 105:3.8; p.1156
¶5 Change type: S1

1st:
Unifier of the deified and the undeified; corelater of the absolute...

2nd - 15th,
CD: Unifier of the deified and the undeified; correlator of
the absolute...

Discussion:

Although it is possible that
the original word (which is not found in either Webster’s or the OED)
was a coined extension of corelation and corelative (both of
which are found), it is not readily apparent how corelater would differ
in meaning from correlator(s), the now standard form, which is found
five times elsewhere in the text. The more likely situation is that two separate
typographical errors were made when this word was set. The first was a T1
(dropped keystroke) error at the end of a line of type; the second was an
incorrect keystroke (T3) error, substituting e for o. This
doubly misspelled word would still be difficult to catch in proofing because
it would sound the same if read out loud, and interestingly enough, if it
looked odd to a proofreader and consequently led him or her to consult the
dictionary, the spelling could neither be confirmed nor denied by either Webster’s
or the OED—neither dictionary contained correlator or corelater—and
without an electronically searchable text, it is unlikely that the evidence
of the otherwise unanimous usage within the revelation itself could have been
brought to bear on the problem.

Conclusion:

This word contained two errors
in the 1955 edition. However, the external reference authorities available
at the time did not contain the now standard spelling and provide reasonable
etymological support for the possible validity of this variant form.

10th, 11th,
15th: ...is invalidated by the eternity
coexistence of the Son, the Spirit...

Discussion:

The hyphenated form is not
found elsewhere in the text and is not supported by the guidelines of the
Chicago Manual or the reference dictionaries. (Coexist [no
hyphen] and its various derivative forms are found twenty times throughout
the Papers.)

Conclusion:

An error was present here
in the 1955 text—possibly an extra keystroke in typing (T2), or, more likely,
an editorial (E2) error.

) 106:5.1; p.1167
¶2 Change type: C2

1st:
...and the Unrevealed Consummator of Universe Destiny.

2nd - 15th,
CD:...and the unrevealed Consummator of Universe Destiny.

Discussion:

The lowercase version appears
to be correct because unrevealed does not seem to be part of the name
but is solely descriptive (the title being found in several places without
unrevealed preceding it). In the one other case in which unrevealed
is found in conjunction with Consummator of Universe Destiny, it is
not capitalized (0:12.7). [Unrevealed is found in one other location
as a capitalized component of a title—The Unrevealed Creative Agencies
of the Ancients of Days (30:1.21)—so such a format is possible.]

The original text does appear
unusual at first glance because one expects a noun like possibility
to be modified by an adjective such as eternal; not by another noun.
In this situation however, eternity is not serving as an adjective,
rather the two nouns together form a single concept or nominal group, identical
in structure to the group which ends the subject sentence: ...man is the
Adjuster’s personality possibility.

All other occurrences in
the text follow the compound form: lighthearted (with the possible
exception of one which is hyphenated at a line break). Database standardization
is probably in order here, although it is interesting to note that this may
be a stylistic variation as it is the only use of the word by an author other
than the midwayers responsible for Part IV.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text was not in
error, but database standardization, if consistently applied, is a reasonable
basis for making the suggested change.

The original, fully hyphenated
form is found in Webster’s, and the fully closed form is found in the
OED, but the hybrid of the 10th, 11th and, 15th
editions is not found anywhere. The modified spelling also violates the general
hyphenation guidelines of the Chicago Manual regarding the avoidance
of forms which might cause the reader to stumble over either pronunciation
or meaning.